Daniel B. Eisenstein v. WTVF-TV, News Channel 5 Network, LLC
2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 515
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Two WTVF broadcasts (July 19, 2010; February 28, 2011) questioned Judge Eisenstein’s ethics investigation and use of an unlicensed psychologist.
- Judge Eisenstein, a public official, filed libel and false light claims against WTVF, Landmark Media, and individuals involved in reporting.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the truth of the statements; trial court treated it as summary judgment and stayed discovery.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding that Eisenstein, as a public figure, could not prove actual malice; appellate review is de novo.
- Court analyzes libel and false light claims separately for each broadcast, considering truth, implied meaning, and fair report privilege.
- First broadcast: court finds statements substantially true; libel claim dismissed; false light claim largely dismissed but with some aspects preserved for review; fair report privilege applied.
- Second broadcast: statements largely true; libel claim dismissed; false light claims partially revived, with specific inferences found actionable; case remanded for further proceedings on those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libel claim—first broadcast viability | Eisenstein argues false statements harmed reputation via actual malice. | Broadcasts were true or substantially true; no actual malice. | First broadcast libel claim affirmed as to dismissal (no genuine issue). |
| False light—first broadcast | Broadcast placed Eisenstein in a false light by suggesting an ethics investigation. | No false implication; statements presented as questions with context. | First broadcast false light claim partly reversed; some inference actionable. |
| Fair report privilege—first broadcast | Privilege does not protect false light implications. | Report fairly summarized proceedings and was balanced. | Fair report privilege affirmed as to the first broadcast. |
| Libel claim—second broadcast viability | Second broadcast contained false statements about licensure and funding. | Most statements true or substantially true; no actual malice. | Second broadcast libel claim dismissed. |
| False light—second broadcast | Second broadcast selectively presented facts to cast Eisenstein as uncooperative or deceptive. | Some omissions did not create false light; others were fair representations. | False light claims related to omission and inference reversed in part; some claims revived and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hibdon v. Grabowski, 195 S.W.3d 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (actual malice required for public figures in libel claims)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for public officials)
- West v. Media Gen. Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. 2001) (false light standard for public officials; actual malice standard applied)
- Langford v. Vanderbilt Univ., 318 S.W.2d 568 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1958) (fair report privilege considerations in reporting public proceedings)
- Lewis v. NewsChannel 5 Network, L.P., 238 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (definitive discussion of fair report privilege in Tennessee)
- McCluen v. Roane Cnty Times, Inc., 936 S.W.2d 936 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (defamatory questions and statements; standard for defamation analysis)